For those who say that Tyson would most certainly " change his style " in an effort to adapt to Foreman's, It is almost a form of admission that he couldn't beat him in his normal groove ( which incidentally is what we would have most likely seen. ) I don't know that I have the confidence in Tyson to make such drastic changes in going from a pure puncher to taking more of a boxing stance. By 1991, he wasn't showing improved skills, but rather ones that were diminished. Why didn't he display more of the upper body movement, workrate and combinations that we saw in 1987, against Razor Ruddock in 1991? What you're basically asking for, is to take a man who lost some of the best skills he had, and reincarnate him with a whole new skill set that he wasn't even made for in the first place.. And nor do I buy the comparison that " if Morrison could do it, so could Tyson. " Tommy was 6'2", and had a 76 " wingspan, which is about the same description of any man who ever defeated Foreman from the outside..he was also a southpaw, which may or may not have had an impact on the equation. That said, I still think Tyson would have the better chance of winning by virtue of still having faster handspeed, devastating one punch power and an unrelenting tendency to attack, which would be a problem for a much older slower opponent. But some of the logic used in a lot of these arguments doesn't sit well with me..

I don't think he needs to change his style at all, Tyson is very good defensively and very hard to hit. Foreman destroyed Frazier because Frazier was fairly easy to hit, especially early. He could beat Frazier to the punch and hit him on the way in because of that, Tyson would be harder to hit on the way in

Quicker fighters with the same reach/strength as Foreman were Rudduck and Bruno, where were the problems? There weren't any

Now Tyson may even have been concerned about this fight but that doesn't mean he wouldn't utterly dominate Foreman

=The Mongoose;12913609]We all know my thoughts on 91 Ruddock, but he was actually a step up from the George who faced Evander.

Based on what evidence? Ruddock's defense was ****, and was nearly KO'd by an ancient Smith who hadn't won a fight in years. his offense was somewhat one dimmensional as well, where as Foreman still had a two fisted attack.

Quote:

And Mike wouldn't have to change his style too much against Old Foreman.

Maybe, and maybe not. But his usual style sure as hell didn't fit the usual blue print for beating Foreman. In fact, there are some who would say that Mike's style was taylor made for Foreman both young and old.

Quote:

Mike would give him fits with just his ordinary bob and weave approach.

Yes, something that we didn't see quite as much of by 1991, the proposed year of the fantasy match.

Quote:

Morrison changed his style because Foreman was the only opponent he faced that was slow enough he could successfully box and run from.

It might have been a good idea for him to employ such an approach against Ray Mercer and Ross Purity.

Quote:

Foreman was too slow to brawl and he knew it, he tried to win fights with his jab and long right bomb. He played the turtle from his cross armed stance.

he did quite a bit more than that. he still cut off the ring pretty well, controlled most guys in the clinches - giving them a nasty gut check in the process, and could still work the body. Also his defense is something Tyson would have to contend with, and frankly I think it would be a tad tougher for a shorter man to land flush on the fash with that defense, than for a taller guy like a Holyfield, Morrison or Stewart - limited as the last two names may have been. I could also see George pushing tyson on teh shoulders, sending him back into mid range for one of the strait jabs you mentioned.

Quote:

Remember when Evander finally opened up on him with those short hooks, banging Foreman all over the place? This is what will happen if Foreman doesn't bear hug Tyson on the inside. It would get very ugly.

You might want to ad that Holyfield also had to TAKE a few shots in order to land some, and frankly I think Evander's chin is a bit more sturdy than Tyson's.

*NOTE* I am still favoring Tyson to beat Foreman. But some of these arguments are getting carried away.

Nice job at selectively taking one sentence out of an entire post and responding to it out of context.

I think what he's inferring is that if Tommy Morrison was able to successfully alter his style to fight George Foreman in a run and gun fashion then Mike Tyson who was far more skilled should be able to do the same thing. Personally I think it's irrelevant because Tyson would have beaten him senseless without having to alter his style.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PowerPuncher

I don't think he needs to change his style at all, Tyson is very good defensively and very hard to hit. Foreman destroyed Frazier because Frazier was fairly easy to hit, especially early. He could beat Frazier to the punch and hit him on the way in because of that, Tyson would be harder to hit on the way in

Quicker fighters with the same reach/strength as Foreman were Rudduck and Bruno, where were the problems? There weren't any

Now Tyson may even have been concerned about this fight but that doesn't mean he wouldn't utterly dominate Foreman

If Tyson had any self doubt or concern he wouldn't have fought Ruddock a fighter who was far more dangerous than Foreman in 1991.

I don't think he needs to change his style at all, Tyson is very good defensively and very hard to hit. Foreman destroyed Frazier because Frazier was fairly easy to hit, especially early. He could beat Frazier to the punch and hit him on the way in because of that, Tyson would be harder to hit on the way in

Quicker fighters with the same reach/strength as Foreman were Rudduck and Bruno, where were the problems? There weren't any

Now Tyson may even have been concerned about this fight but that doesn't mean he wouldn't utterly dominate Foreman

precisely why I ended my post with this comment, assuming you got that far.

Quote:

That said, I still think Tyson would have the better chance of winning by virtue of still having faster handspeed, devastating one punch power and an unrelenting tendency to attack, which would be a problem for a much older slower opponent. But some of the logic used in a lot of these arguments doesn't sit well with me..

=ironchamp;12914160]I think what he's inferring is that if Tommy Morrison was able to successfully alter his style to fight George Foreman in a run and gun fashion then Mike Tyson who was far more skilled should be able to do the same thing.

Oh I know what he meant.. But he also left out some other comments that I made which expound upon my position on the matter, hence leaving a third party ( yourself ) to believe that I was inferring Morrison as more skilled than Tyson... Not the case.

Based on what evidence? Ruddock's defense was ****, and was nearly KO'd by an ancient Smith who hadn't won a fight in years. his offense was somewhat one dimmensional as well, where as Foreman still had a two fisted attack.

It well documented that Ruddock was avoided by the top brass in the Heavyweight Division and for good reason. He was a pretty dangerous fighter who oozed potential and his fights with Tyson reinforced the belief that he was among the 2 best Heavyweights in the World despite Holyfield being the one who held (at the time) "Tyson's belts."

As for the Smith? He was a big puncher and it's a moot point really seeing how he stopped Smith.

Quote:

Maybe, and maybe not. But his usual style sure as hell didn't fit the usual blue print for beating Foreman. In fact, there are some who would say that Mike's style was taylor made for Foreman both young and old.

On the flip side, Foreman didn't have the stye that was the usual blueprint to beating Mike Tyson. Too much emphasis is being place on Foreman's power when it's not even a prerequisite to beating Tyson. Douglas & Holyfield proved that their volume and elusiveness works better than Ruddock, Bruno, or Smith's 1 punch capabilities.

When Ruddock fought Tyson he quickly discovered how quick Tyson's counters were and how hard Mike punches. So Razor slowly resorted to using his size to keep Mike occupied and throwing one punch at a time because he figured he has the kind of power that can KO a Racing Horse so the strategy should be sufficient. And it wasn't. Foreman is a deliberate fighter who will stand in front of Mike. Mike has better hand speed and matches him on power.

Quote:

Yes, something that we didn't see quite as much of by 1991, the proposed year of the fantasy match.

Ruddock didn't force that out of him. He didn't completely forget, he just couldn't be bothered against a fighter who didn't push him to that limit.

Quote:

It might have been a good idea for him to employ such an approach against Ray Mercer and Ross Purity.

Maybe against Purrity but against Mercer I don't think anybody suspected that Tommy didn't have a chin.

Quote:

he did quite a bit more than that. he still cut off the ring pretty well, controlled most guys in the clinches - giving them a nasty gut check in the process, and could still work the body. Also his defense is something Tyson would have to contend with, and frankly I think it would be a tad tougher for a shorter man to land flush on the fash with that defense, than for a taller guy like a Holyfield, Morrison or Stewart - limited as the last two names may have been. I could also see George pushing tyson on teh shoulders, sending him back into mid range for one of the strait jabs you mentioned.

He did that against lesser opponents. When he stepped it up he fell short. Michael Moorer was making a highlight reel of him until he got ****y. Pushing him on the shoulders and sending back to mid-range isn't the way to go; Tyson is sublime at mid-range.

Quote:

You might want to ad that Holyfield also had to TAKE a few shots in order to land some, and frankly I think Evander's chin is a bit more sturdy than Tyson's.

Holyfield took a few shots in order to land some because he was far better at countering than he was at leading (at least at that point in his career) but his chin was not more sturdy than Tyson's. Holyfield's style incorporated backpedaling which allowed him to recuperate whenever he got hurt; when Tyson got hurt he continued to press forward. There is no doubt in my mind that if Evander was a come forward fighter then Lewis would have stopped him in the 5th round of their first fight.

Guy's like Tyson and Frazier have better chin's than some give credit for; they are always pressing the action and when they walk into big punches they don't retreat, it's not their style, what they simply do is they continue to press forward. Guys like Holyfield and Ali have styles that allow for them to recuperate and stay upright.

Look at Holyfield vs Mercer; if that were a 12 round fight, Mercer loses by KO. After he was dropped, he went full retreat for the rest of the fight taking less chances. His chin gets touted as granite. Could you picture him slugging it out with Evander for the remainder of the fight? Was he up for it physically? Or did he still look dazed?

Quote:

*NOTE* I am still favoring Tyson to beat Foreman. But some of these arguments are getting carried away.

Boxing is a very subjective sport but there are certain match ups that I have a hard time giving any credence to and this is one of them. I simply refuse to feed the beast by stating that Foreman had a chance when I'm certain that he would have slaughtered.

20 years from now there are going to be a contingency of people claiming Hasim Rahman scared Vitaly Klitschko into retirement and there are going to be people entertaining that notion. Those of who know better will feel the frustration that I feel about this match-up.

Based on what evidence? Ruddock's defense was ****, and was nearly KO'd by an ancient Smith who hadn't won a fight in years. his offense was somewhat one dimmensional as well, where as Foreman still had a two fisted attack.

My eyes. Old Foreman is the slowest of the slow.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr. magoo

Maybe, and maybe not. But his usual style sure as hell didn't fit the usual blue print for beating Foreman. In fact, there are some who would say that Mike's style was taylor made for Foreman both young and old.

Night and day. Old Foreman was too slow to get off the wide uppercut that would Tyson would be vulnerable too. His money punch was the slow right cross.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr. magoo

Yes, something that we didn't see quite as much of by 1991, the proposed year of the fantasy match.

Tyson was certainly still bobbing and weaving in 91. Even the movement he showed against Douglas and Ruddock would have been enough to make Foreman miss.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr. magoo

It might have been a good idea for him to employ such an approach against Ray Mercer and Ross Purity.

I remember him boxing Mercer well, until he got caught and finished, something old Foreman couldn't do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr. magoo

he did quite a bit more than that. he still cut off the ring pretty well,

Nobody who cuts off the ring pretty well is letting Morrison and Stewart clown them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr. magoo

You might want to ad that Holyfield also had to TAKE a few shots in order to land some, and frankly I think Evander's chin is a bit more sturdy than Tyson's.

Not in the flurry I was referencing he didn't. And I'm not banking on anybody stopping 90s Tyson with one shot anymore than I would Evander. Not happening. It was sustained punishment that put Tyson away.

Two long responses from IronChamp and the ole' Mongoose. No way am I reading all that at three O'clock on a thursday before a long weekend. Time to leave the office. Thanks for keeping me entertained during working hours fellas. I'll respond to your posts when I get time or the motivation.. have a great weekend....

Foreman/Arum used Tyson as a marketing tool, similar to Pac /May, the oldest trick in the book besides matching a fighter with has beens or never were's and pro claiming they are the best. The problem was that nobody bought that BS 20 years ago, mainly due the absent of the net and self proclaimed armchair pistoleros who never ever had been in a gym or been to a fight but still living in their parents basement as "experts".

Well, it is working now, just look at the Pac/May spectacle, anybody with a brain knows that May will beat Pac like a drum, lol, Pacs trainer and promoter are convinced of that too.

The only reason Foreman fought, besides a belt, Holyfield was that Evan Fields was not condidered a true Heavyweight (little did they know) and at a fight recap at the HBO studios and if recollection does not betray me still wearing sunglasses to hide his all bruised up face Foreman admitted to that and was adament that Holy does not punch like a true Heavy, quite far from it.

At a Tyson/Ruddock news conference to hype the fight Tyson was asked about a Foreman fight and he responded with a lisp" you guys would crucify me if I fight this fossil" and absolutely nobody in the boxing press audience put any objection up....

IMO Tyson is all wrong for Foreman it does not matter forst or second career.

Speed kills, Tyson's power is easily on par or better than Foreman, better defense by a mile........until the Douglas fight even Tyson detractors could only come up with a handful of meaningful punches that actually landed, one can count them on on hand.....Smith,Tucker and Bruno, while on the contrary Foreman had absolute disregard to defense.........if a Ali not firing on all cylinders hits you with lead rights AT WILL, if a limited gatekeeper like Lyle has you in a no finesse no jab no movemet brawl down and out on your feet you are going to the morgue with Tyson.

Conclusion:

Young Foreman way to open and agressive......this could be a Berbick replay.

Old Foreman way to slow and his ****ty crabdefense would not allow him to open up once Tyson tees off.....flat out KO or referee mercy stoppage.......but good ol' George would have never taken that fight so the point is moot.

Lets go back to Foreman 's power, yeah he beat a undersized chinney Frazier and a glasschin bodybuilder Norton.........and the sayin is that the last fighter looses is his power, well, in his comeback once he stepped up from tomatoecans, drug addicts (Cooper), clubfighters(Rodriguez) and alkies(****ey) he hardly put ANYBODY away even when they stood right in front trading with him (Stewart, Saverese).........because he was no longer the big guy , he fought full sizes modern Heavies......and they stood up to his shoots. Throw that into the mix with any movement (Morrison) that one will realize that Foreman in his comeback was nothing more than a hypejob which made George rich and I do give him the highest credit for accomplishing major $$$$. He was never ring smart but he is definetly money smart.

Foreman/Arum used Tyson as a marketing tool, similar to Pac /May, the oldest trick in the book besides matching a fighter with has beens or never were's and pro claiming they are the best. The problem was that nobody bought that BS 20 years ago, mainly due the absent of the net and self proclaimed armchair pistoleros who never ever had been in a gym or been to a fight but still living in their parents basement as "experts".

Well, it is working now, just look at the Pac/May spectacle, anybody with a brain knows that May will beat Pac like a drum, lol, Pacs trainer and promoter are convinced of that too.

The only reason Foreman fought, besides a belt, Holyfield was that Evan Fields was not condidered a true Heavyweight (little did they know) and at a fight recap at the HBO studios and if recollection does not betray me still wearing sunglasses to hide his all bruised up face Foreman admitted to that and was adament that Holy does not punch like a true Heavy, quite far from it.

At a Tyson/Ruddock news conference to hype the fight Tyson was asked about a Foreman fight and he responded with a lisp" you guys would crucify me if I fight this fossil" and absolutely nobody in the boxing press audience put any objection up....

IMO Tyson is all wrong for Foreman it does not matter forst or second career.

Speed kills, Tyson's power is easily on par or better than Foreman, better defense by a mile........until the Douglas fight even Tyson detractors could only come up with a handful of meaningful punches that actually landed, one can count them on on hand.....Smith,Tucker and Bruno, while on the contrary Foreman had absolute disregard to defense.........if a Ali not firing on all cylinders hits you with lead rights AT WILL, if a limited gatekeeper like Lyle has you in a no finesse no jab no movemet brawl down and out on your feet you are going to the morgue with Tyson.

Conclusion:

Young Foreman way to open and agressive......this could be a Berbick replay.

Old Foreman way to slow and his ****ty crabdefense would not allow him to open up once Tyson tees off.....flat out KO or referee mercy stoppage.......but good ol' George would have never taken that fight so the point is moot.

Lets go back to Foreman 's power, yeah he beat a undersized chinney Frazier and a glasschin bodybuilder Norton.........and the sayin is that the last fighter looses is his power, well, in his comeback once he stepped up from tomatoecans, drug addicts (Cooper), clubfighters(Rodriguez) and alkies(****ey) he hardly put ANYBODY away even when they stood right in front trading with him (Stewart, Saverese).........because he was no longer the big guy , he fought full sizes modern Heavies......and they stood up to his shoots. Throw that into the mix with any movement (Morrison) that one will realize that Foreman in his comeback was nothing more than a hypejob which made George rich and I do give him the highest credit for accomplishing major $$$$. He was never ring smart but he is definetly money smart.

agreed. Old George was big enough, tough enough and most of all wise enough to look better than he was with the right matchmaking. Having lived through the whole thing I don’t remember him being taken seriously by a single boxing person until after the holyfeild fight -and even then it was only as an opponent -not as a "could be champ".

There were a lot of "could be champs" around that were ahead of George but mainstream sports fans loved the whole old man foreman bandwagon (that George was very aware of) so he was able to leapfrog worthy contenders in lucrative fights that suited him. People don’t know or don’t remember the whole beef burger shtick Foreman was giving it! the man was a tough old guy but still only a part time veteran fighter in real terms. cherry picking matches.... Old george was a salesman.

If Foreman was ever put in the ring at gun point with Tyson (and that’s what it would take) George woud be brave enough to be difficult but he could never win -and he knew it! Tyson by 91 used less head movement and did run out of ideas as soon as he got resistance but Foreman was no resistance.

Imagine you are Tyson, even fragile ****ed up Tyson, You get to fight a guy who you can get up close too, find the angle, hit him hard before he can respond, shift your feet and hit him again from the other side - all before the poor ******* moves. If Frank Bruno couldn’t get off against Tyson neither will old George.

agreed. Old George was big enough, tough enough and most of all wise enough to look better than he was with the right matchmaking. Having lived through the whole thing I donít remember him being taken seriously by a single boxing person until after the holyfeild fight -and even then it was only as an opponent -not as a "could be champ".

There were a lot of "could be champs" around that were ahead of George but mainstream sports fans loved the whole old man foreman bandwagon (that George was very aware of) so he was able to leapfrog worthy contenders in lucrative fights that suited him. People donít know or donít remember the whole beef burger shtick Foreman was giving it! the man was a tough old guy but still only a part time veteran fighter in real terms. cherry picking matches.... Old george was a salesman.

If Foreman was ever put in the ring at gun point with Tyson (and thatís what it would take) George woud be brave enough to be difficult but he could never win -and he knew it! Tyson by 91 used less head movement and did run out of ideas as soon as he got resistance but Foreman was no resistance.

Imagine you are Tyson, even fragile ****ed up Tyson, You get to fight a guy who you can get up close too, find the angle, hit him hard before he can respond, shift your feet and hit him again from the other side - all before the poor ******* moves. If Frank Bruno couldnít get off against Tyson neither will old George.